[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kilogram not yet concluded after all

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> Namaste Michael ji.

It is clear to me our understanding of mithya is the issue..
>

Indeed.

'Mithya is mulavidya' is not the same as 'mulavidya is mithya.'
>

Anything which is mithyA is adhyasta. MUlAvidyA is mithyA, hence it is
adhyasta.

Mithya is false; false what? false error, mithya adhyasa or false fact,
> mithya ajnana/mulavidya.
>

False means something which is not at all there. Just appears. A magician
projects a Taj Mahal right before me in thin air. That is false. It is not
there, it just appears.

'False fact' because mulavidya survives the fall of adhyasa;
>

This is not correct. While mUlAvidyA appears even when kArya-adhyAsa isn't
there, it itself being adhyasta, cannot be said to survive adhyAsa.

because mulavidya is the cause of mind in DSV; because mulavidya is taken
> to be something other than Brahman.
>

And hence mUlAvidyA is mithyA and is hence ever non-existent.

Saying mulavidya is adhyasta only confuses the conversation because it
> assumes two adhyasa-s. I can't think of anywhere Bhasyakara refers to karya
> adhyasa but I could be wrong - new call for evidence.
>

All adhyAsa starting from aham-adhyAsa are kArya-adhyAsa and are with
beginning. aham-adhyAsa is the first kArya-adhyAsa. ajnAna-adhyAsa is the
beginningless kAraNa-adhyAsa. Wherever BhAshyakAra talks of AvaraNa, it is
ajnAna-adhyAsa.

and btw, absence and darkness are buddhi only - the only bhavarupa of
> buddhi is Atma. The bhavarupa of absence of jar is the svarupa of jar which
> is only Atma. The point of satkaryavada is to distinguish Existence from
> existence/non-existence. Darkness as a bhavarupa does not denote a physical
> fact.
>

Sorry but these are incoherent.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>